Instigator
Points: 6

Ragnar always votes against me and i think its personal

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
Ragnar
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender
Points: 28
Description
Ragnar should be censored for his bias to me
Round 1
Published:
Ragnar, bro why do you hate me? talk to me
Published:
For this debate, I shall be using the style from the formatting guide [1]. Honestly, I’m doing this debate to try to help Bill improve...
 
 
Preamble:
I shall disprove both premises of the resolution
  1. That I always vote against Bill, and
  2. That my voting regarding Bill is personally targeted against him.
 
Burden of Proof
The resolution is divided between two premises. Bill should win if he proves both with some degree of certainty, and I should win if such fails (either due to my efforts, or him just not making a case).


I. “always votes against”:
Avoiding any games of how frequently I do other activities besides voting, I shall take this to mean that I vote against him on all of his debates...

Verifiably False
On the debate “Standard of living and quality of life are different things,” due to him offering what I considered to be a superior argument, I graded the arguments in favor of Bill [2]; giving him his sole victory I might add.
 
I have additionally not voted on all of Bill’s debates.
 
Prolific Voter
My votes account for 12.5% of first page of the leaderboard [3]. This can cause confusion as I vote a lot; meaning if someone is giving poor performances, I am statistically likely to cast many votes against them.
 
 
II. “its personal” [sic]:
For this one, I shall highlight the two paths Bill is likely to choose between...
 
Semantics
While I hope this premise is to mean just that it’s personal; Bill has an advantage he can press here, in that he precluded the statement with “i think” [sic], giving him the semantic path that I cannot disprove what he truly thinks. If he goes that path, I will of course argue that he must offer some minor proof to his internal thoughts.
 
Non-Semantics
Going this route, Bill must show some evidence that I hold some type of personal grudge against him. If he wronged me at some point, that would be good evidence. Until such has been presented, I cannot offer evidence against it (aside from what I did in the Prolific Voter subpoint).
 
 
Sources:
  1. https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
  2. https://www.debateart.com/debates/1367/vote_links/3436
  3. https://www.debateart.com/leaderboard/debates?order_direction=desc&order=votes


Round 2
Published:
you always vote against me bro always its there for all too see
Published:
Pro has dropped my case, and made no more than a weak argument by assertion. As a reminder, his claims are...
Verifiably False
On the debate “Standard of living and quality of life are different things,” due to him offering what I considered to be a superior argument, I graded the arguments in favor of Bill [2]; giving him his sole victory I might add.
Added:
--> @Ramshutu, @oromagi, @bmdrocks21, @Trent0405
Thank you all for voting!
Contender
#4
Added:
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason: PRO's offering was pretty straightforward-
P1: User Ragnar always votes against user billbatard
C1: therefore, Ragnar is shown to be biased in debates involving user billbatard
PRO's single strand of evidence was instantly disproved with CON's link to a debate where Ragnar favored billbatard
As instigator and provacateur, BoP was 100% PRO's and he just didn't bother to assemble any case beyond the one faulty assertion
CON offered contradicting evidence and challenged PRO to prove state of mind, which challenge PRO did not accept. In fact, PRO never engaged.
Arguments to CON.
Sources to CON for refuting PRO entire premise with a link to a vote contradicting PRO's assertion.
S&G to CON for offering PRO the point if PRO would only adhere to DART formatting (as designed by CON). PRO ignored this generous offering.
Conduct to CON because PRO essentially used debates to dodge the "no call out thread" rules of DART. Judging by PRO's overall lack of conviction and effort, this VOTER finds that PRO's debate represent an effort to troll/provoke that was effectively nullified by CON's adherence to DART standards.
#3
Added:
cool
Instigator
#2
Added:
If Bill manages to use my suggested formatting in R2, I urge an S&G vote in his favor for the magnitude of improvement.
Contender
#1
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
RFD in comments
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Ragnar completely disproved Pro's case by providing a link to debate in which he did vote for him. Also no arguments for the "personal" point. Without any refutation, arguments must go to CON.
Links to voting history disprove that he isn't vote bombing or making it personal. CON actually gave sources to prove his point. Sources go to CON.
I could understand what both were saying. Tie on spelling and grammar.
Callout debate and then didn't even argue. Wasted CON's time, who actually went to the trouble to make points. CON gets conduct points.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro is objectively wrong when he states that Ragnar always votes against him and Ragnar points this out when he refers to the debate “Standard of living and quality of life are different things”, and seeing how Pro must prove Ragnar always votes against him and that it is personal, he can't win this debate unless he could prove that Ragnar really didn't vote against him in that debate. Sadly, Billbatard fails to prove this in R2, he never even supported how it was personal either, he just dropped everything Ragnar stated.
Therefore Pro loses arguments because he doesn't offer any evidence.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
No argument is offered by pro at all. Con demonstrates he has voted for pro - directly refuting the premise. Arguments to con, open and shut.
Sources: con won the debate with an unassailable source that demonstrated the resolution false, by linking the vote that refuted the resolution, cons source was seminal in the victory thus warrants the source point - pro offered no sources.
Conduct: this is a poor conduct call out debate - which, together with pros unwillingness to argue - is clearly poor behaviour, and Warrants a conduct mark down.